Letter: Gill manufactured a non-existent slight

I thought that with my withdrawal from the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s race, I could slip into obscurity and the race could proceed between the other two qualified candidates without confusion or distraction. Regrettably, in his zeal to publish yet another puff piece about himself, Mr. Gill has manufactured a slight that was non-existent and, in the process, crossed the line of acceptable conduct.

To wit, he accuses me of making "a number of unsubstantiated allegations describing the record of the Commonwealth Attorney’s office" in my letter to the editor dated Sept. 22. I have carefully re-read my letter and find no allegations about the record of the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office at all, much less anything that requires substantiation.

Mr. Gill then goes further and states that "by implication" … I assert that he has "failed to show leadership in the office," is "without the energy to hold that office" and has failed to preserve "our Mathews way of life." The offending phrase that triggered this defamatory diatribe is my statement that "the primary mission of this election and my candidacy is to bring new leadership and energy back to the office." The operative word is the adjective "new" which modifies and clarifies the object "leadership and energy." The term "new leadership and energy" in no way suggests the absence of the same, quite frankly it infers the opposite. This cognitive disconnect that Mr. Gill displays is troubling in many ways and may explain why many who watch him suggest that he just doesn’t seem to connect.

More importantly, Mr. Gill demonstrates a sloppy and careless usage of the language which is an attorney’s most important tool. The law is very precise in its exercise and slight changes to meanings, order or even punctuation can change the entire outcome of a case. We all remember that important quote that "it all depends upon what the definition of ‘is’ is." I find it very troubling that Mr. Gill has either mistakenly or intentionally come up with such offense from a letter that I thought very non-inflammatory. In my opinion, either scenario, the lack of either competence or integrity, should be disqualifiers to the office.